No, the issue of a properly enacted amendment was addressed before the election. The California Supreme Court did address it’s constitutionality (with respect to California’s Constitution) after it became part of the Constitution, and it passed muster with them. This case is outside of California altogether.
From the court’s ruling in Strauss v. Horton:
“In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the
separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights” theory proffered by the Attorney General. “
No mention of the constutionality of the amendment, other than the specific issues addressed in the decision.